A LOOK AT UNITED STATES PROPERTY TAX RATES – STATE BY STATE LISTING

When evaluating the cost of owning a home, many people think first of the mortgage payment, maintenance, insurance, and utilities. One of the less glamorous but persistently significant costs is the property tax (or real estate tax), levied on land and improvements (buildings). Because property taxes are recurring, typically assessed annually (or more frequently), shifts in rates, assessments, exemptions, and valuation practices can have a major impact on affordability, home values, and the political debates around taxation.

To understand how burdens vary across U.S. states today — and how they compare to about a century ago — we need to look at (1) modern effective tax burdens, and (2) historical context and evidence from roughly the 1920s–1930s. Because consistent, reliable state‑level data from 100 years ago are scarce, much of the historical comparison must rest on qualitative evidence, case studies, and trends. But even with those limits, the narrative of how property tax burdens have evolved is meaningful.

In the following, I first present a sketch of recent effective property tax rates by state. Then I discuss the challenges of comparing to a century ago. Next, I go state by state (alphabetically), listing the modern rates and remarks about how things likely differed a century ago. Finally I offer reflections on the long‑term trends and caveats.

Residential Property Tax Rates by State

“Tax rate” can mean different things: statutory millage, assessed value over market value, effective tax rate (taxes paid divided by property value), or net burden after exemptions. For a meaningful cross‑state comparison, a good measure is the effective residential property tax rate (i.e. what homeowners actually pay as a percentage of the market value of their property, averaged across municipalities, with exemptions built in).

Based on compilations of recent data, here is a summary (approximate) of effective residential property tax rates by state:

Alabama: ~0.36%
Alaska: ~0.91%
Arizona: ~0.44%
Arkansas: ~0.53%
California: ~0.70%
Colorado: ~0.50%
Connecticut: ~1.48%
Delaware: ~0.50%
Florida: ~0.74%
Georgia: ~0.77%
Hawaii: ~0.32%
Idaho: ~0.48%
Illinois: ~1.83%
Indiana: ~0.77%
Iowa: ~1.23%
Kansas: ~1.19%
Kentucky: ~0.73%
Louisiana: ~0.55%
Maine: ~0.94%
Maryland: ~0.90%
Massachusetts: ~0.97%
Michigan: ~1.15%
Minnesota: ~0.99%
Mississippi: ~0.58%
Missouri: ~0.88%
Montana: ~0.60%
Nebraska: ~1.43%
Nevada: ~0.49%
New Hampshire: ~1.41%
New Jersey: ~1.77%
New Mexico: ~0.61%
New York: ~1.26%
North Carolina: ~0.62%
North Dakota: ~0.94%
Ohio: ~1.31%
Oklahoma: ~0.77%
Oregon: ~0.78%
Pennsylvania: ~1.19%
Rhode Island: ~1.05%
South Carolina: ~0.47%
South Dakota: ~0.99%
Tennessee: ~0.49%
Texas: ~1.36%
Utah: ~0.47%
Vermont: ~1.42%
Virginia: ~0.77%
Washington: ~0.75%
West Virginia: ~0.48%
Wisconsin: ~1.25%
Wyoming: ~0.55%

These numbers show that in many states, effective residential property tax burdens lie somewhere in the range of about 0.3% to 1.5% of the property’s value, with variation above and below that depending on local conditions.

Some important caveats about these modern figures:

These are averages across localities (counties, cities, school districts) and thus mask large variation within each state.
Differences in assessment practices (e.g. whether assessment is at full market or at a fraction, how often revaluations occur) can make comparisons imperfect.
Many states provide exemptions, caps, or special treatment (senior exemptions, homestead abatements, freezes, etc.), so the effective burden faced by a specific homeowner may differ significantly from the raw rate.
The “effective rate” generally reflects net burden after these exemptions or distortions, not simply the statutory rate.

With this modern benchmark in hand, the next question is: what was the property tax burden like about 100 years ago?

Property Taxes 100 Years Ago

Finding clean, statewide, residential property tax data from the 1920s is extremely difficult. The institutional and economic environment was quite different back then, so direct numerical comparisons are rare. Here are some general observations and constraints:

Property tax was a foundational local revenue source
In the early 20th century, many local governments (counties, cities, towns, school districts) relied heavily on property taxes. Other revenue sources (income tax, sales tax) were less developed in many places. Thus, property taxes were already important in that era.
Nominal rates were lower, but so were property values, services, and infrastructure
Millage rates in many jurisdictions were lower in nominal terms in the 1920s compared to modern times. But property values were far lower, public service demands were smaller, and infrastructure was less extensive. Residential real estate was simpler (fewer amenities, fewer municipal services). So while the nominal tax burden might have been lower, in some cases the burden as a share of incomes or local resources might not be radically smaller.
Assessment practices and bases diverged
In many places, assessments were less frequent, less uniform, and less tied to market values. Exemptions and classification differences were less developed. That makes it very difficult to standardize across time.
Case studies exist but not standard tables
Some historical researchers or municipal archives provide millage and tax assessment data for specific cities or counties in early decades. But these rarely aggregate to full-state residential effective rates. One would often need to dig into archival tax rolls, state auditor reports, or municipal budgets to reconstruct a local history.
Trend over the 20th century
As cities expanded, roads, schools, utilities, libraries, water and sewer systems, and public amenities proliferated, the demands on local governments rose. That generally pushed property tax burdens upward over time. But to avoid excessive burden on homeowners, many jurisdictions gradually introduced reforms (exemptions, rate caps, valuation limitations, classification) and diversified revenue sources (sales tax, income tax, state aid) which moderated growth.

Because of these constraints, the historical comparisons in the state summaries that follow are mostly qualitative or based on anecdotal evidence. But they still help illustrate how much transformation there has been in municipal finance and homeownership burdens over the last century.

State-by-State Comparisons (Alphabetical)

Below, for each state, I present the modern effective rate (as in the snapshot above) and then comment on how things likely compared about 100 years ago (or in earlier decades), along with cautions and notes when available.

Alabama

Modern effective rate: ~0.36%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, Alabama was largely rural, and municipal infrastructure was less developed. Many houses were modest and local governments had modest obligations. So nominal tax burdens on homes were lower. Because assessment systems were simpler, and many rural properties may have been lightly taxed, the effective burden was likely substantially lower in that era.

Alaska

Modern effective rate: ~0.91%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Alaska in the 1920s was not yet a U.S. state (it was a territory) and was sparsely populated. Many properties were undeveloped, with limited municipal services and local governments. Thus, property tax burdens on residential real estate were probably very low. It is difficult to find a reliable benchmark from that period.

Arizona

Modern effective rate: ~0.44%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the early 20th century, Arizona was still in development, with many rural tracts, relatively modest municipal structures, and lower service expectations. Homes in cities such as Phoenix or Tucson may have been subject to tax, but base values were low. Over time, infrastructure, roads, utilities, schools, and municipal expansion pushed tax burdens upward.

Arkansas

Modern effective rate: ~0.53%
Comparison to 100 years ago: With a largely rural economy in the 1920s, many homes were in small towns or countryside, with less intensive public service demands. The nominal tax burden then was likely lower. Over decades, as cities grew and public services expanded, property tax burdens climbed.

California

Modern effective rate: ~0.70%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, California’s urban areas had property tax systems, but property values were much lower, assessment practices more modest, and municipal responsibilities simpler. Over the 20th century, growth in roads, schools, utilities, municipal services, and local government expansion pushed tax burdens upward. An important turning point occurred in 1978 with a reform (Prop 13) that limited annual assessment growth and capped general tax rates. That reform has constrained tax growth relative to what it might otherwise have been but still, the baseline today is far above what was common in the early decades.

Colorado

Modern effective rate: ~0.50%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, much of Colorado was less urbanized and many communities were smaller. The demands on local governments for roads, utilities, and schools were lower. Over time, urbanization and infrastructure needs have pushed effective property tax burdens upward in many counties, relative to what they were a century ago.

Connecticut

Modern effective rate: ~1.48%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Connecticut has long had relatively dense towns and robust municipal needs. Even in the 1920s, towns required support for schools, roads, and municipal services, so property tax rates in urban zones may have been significant for that time. But valuations and the scale of services were much smaller, so the real burden was less. Over the succeeding decades, suburbanization, increased municipal complexity, and service expansion raised tax burdens further.

Delaware

Modern effective rate: ~0.50%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Delaware’s mix of small towns and rural areas in the early 20th century meant many homeowners faced relatively modest municipal expectations and tax burdens. Over time, as towns grew, municipal services expanded, and public infrastructure needs rose, property tax burdens increased relative to the earlier era.

Florida

Modern effective rate: ~0.74%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, much of Florida was less developed, especially inland. Many properties were either agriculturally oriented or remote, with minimal municipal services. As the 20th century progressed, growth in cities, tourism, infrastructure, utilities, and school systems raised tax burdens in many counties. Thus, modern effective burdens are quite higher than they would have been a century ago.

Georgia

Modern effective rate: ~0.77%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In earlier decades, many Georgia counties were still predominantly rural, with modest municipal obligations. Over time, growth of cities like Atlanta, expansion of public services, transportation, utilities, and school systems pushed property tax demands upward, increasing burden relative to those earlier years.

Hawaii

Modern effective rate: ~0.32%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, Hawaii was a U.S. territory. Many properties were under plantation or leasehold systems, and the structure of property and taxation was different. Because valuations were lower and development less dense, property tax burdens on residences would have been relatively modest. Comparing directly is difficult, but given the modern relatively low effective rate (despite high land values), the growth in burden is less dramatic than in some mainland states.

Idaho

Modern effective rate: ~0.48%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Idaho in the early 20th century had a lot of rural area and less developed towns, meaning modest tax burdens on homes. As municipalities expanded, infrastructure demand grew, and education and utilities increased, property taxes on residential property rose over time.

Illinois

Modern effective rate: ~1.83%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In places like Chicago and Cook County, even in the early 1900s, municipal taxes, school district levies, and local assessments existed, though valuations were much lower. Over the 20th century, suburban expansion, school funding pressures, infrastructure, and municipal services increased property tax burdens significantly. The effective rate today is substantially higher in real burden compared to the early era.

Indiana

Modern effective rate: ~0.77%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, Indiana had many small towns and rural counties; municipal services were simpler, and tax demands lower. Over time as cities grew and local needs expanded, property tax burdens on residential property climbed in many places.

Iowa

Modern effective rate: ~1.23%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Iowa’s economy remained partly agricultural for much of the early 20th century. Many homes, especially in rural counties or small towns, had light tax burdens. In urban or growing towns, tax burdens would have been higher. Over the century, infrastructure, school consolidation, and local development increased demands, pushing effective property tax burdens upward.

Kansas

Modern effective rate: ~1.19%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Kansas in the early decades was a mix of rural and small towns, where municipal expectations were modest. Over time, demands for schools, roads, utilities, and municipal services rose, increasing property tax burdens. The growth in municipal complexity and public service needs likely made modern burdens greater relative to those early years.

Kentucky

Modern effective rate: ~0.73%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Many Kentucky counties in the 1920s were rural with minimal service demand. As the 20th century progressed, municipal obligations, road networks, school demands, and expansion of public services raised property tax burdens on residential property compared to a century ago.

Louisiana

Modern effective rate: ~0.55%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the early 20th century, much of Louisiana was rural, with plantations and agricultural land. Property tax burdens on homes were modest in many parishes, especially rural ones. Over decades, urban expansion, municipal service demands, infrastructure, and school costs pushed tax burdens higher. Some local tax abatement or homestead exemptions moderate the burden in specific places.

Maine

Modern effective rate: ~0.94%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, many Maine towns were small and isolated, with limited municipal infrastructure and simpler responsibilities. Over time, demands for road maintenance, school consolidation, and municipal services increased. Thus, modern burdens are higher relative to early 20th century.

Maryland

Modern effective rate: ~0.90%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the early 20th century, Maryland included a mix of rural counties and denser counties near Baltimore and D.C. Local governments had to support basic infrastructure, but the scale was smaller. Over time, suburban growth, infrastructure demands, municipal expansion, and schooling needs pushed property tax burdens upward relative to earlier decades.

Massachusetts

Modern effective rate: ~0.97%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Massachusetts has long had dense municipalities and strong demands for municipal services. In the 1920s, cities like Boston already had municipal taxing authority, but property values and the scale of services were smaller. Over time, as urban areas expanded and municipal complexity increased, property tax burdens rose, though assessment constraints and exemptions have sometimes limited runaway growth.

Michigan

Modern effective rate: ~1.15%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In early decades, cities like Detroit and Grand Rapids were taxed, but residential valuations were lower, and municipal systems were less complex. Over time, expansion of municipal services, infrastructure, transportation, and school funding increased burdens on homeowners.

Minnesota

Modern effective rate: ~0.99%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Many regions were rural or lightly populated in earlier decades. Cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul had tax systems, but with lower valuations and simpler services. Over time, public service demands, urban development, and infrastructure growth have increased property tax burdens on residential property.

Mississippi

Modern effective rate: ~0.58%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, many Mississippi counties were rural and less developed, and property tax burdens for residential properties were modest. Over time, growth of towns and increased municipal responsibilities raised property tax demands on homeowners.

Missouri

Modern effective rate: ~0.88%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Missouri’s mix of rural counties and growing cities (St. Louis, Kansas City) meant that tax burdens varied. In earlier decades, many residential properties faced lower burdens. But over time, infrastructure expansion, municipal growth, school funding, and local services increased burdens, pushing modern effective rates higher relative to earlier periods.

Montana

Modern effective rate: ~0.60%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Much of Montana in the early 20th century was rural, remote, or lightly developed, so tax burdens on residences were low. As towns grew, infrastructure and municipal service demands increased, so property tax burdens rose relative to earlier periods.

Nebraska

Modern effective rate: ~1.43%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Nebraska combined agricultural land and growing towns. In early decades, rural homes faced modest tax burdens, while urban zones had higher demands. Over time, infrastructure, school systems, and municipal services expanded, pushing effective tax burdens on homes upward relative to the earlier era.

Nevada

Modern effective rate: ~0.49%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, Nevada was sparsely populated, with many remote or undeveloped lands, limited municipal infrastructure, and less intensive public service demands. Thus, residential property tax burdens were likely very low. Over time, urban growth (especially in Las Vegas, Reno) increased demands on local governments, raising the effective tax burden.

New Hampshire

Modern effective rate: ~1.41%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the early 20th century, many New Hampshire towns were small with limited municipal services. Over decades, as public education, roads, water and sewer, and municipal needs grew, property tax burdens increased. Modern burdens are considerably higher relative to earlier decades.

New Jersey

Modern effective rate: ~1.77%
Comparison to 100 years ago: New Jersey, especially near New York City and Philadelphia, had dense municipalities even in early decades. Municipal and school systems already commanded property tax levies. But property values were lower and municipal obligations more modest. Over time, suburbanization, school finance pressures, municipal expansion, and service demand drove tax burdens upward. The modern effective rate is much more burdensome in real terms than in the early 20th century, though municipal reforms and caps in some places have mitigated runaway growth.

New Mexico

Modern effective rate: ~0.61%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, New Mexico was sparsely settled, with many lands rural and few municipal services outside small towns. As cities like Albuquerque and Santa Fe grew, public service demand increased and property tax burdens on residential properties rose relative to early decades.

New York

Modern effective rate: ~1.26%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In early 20th century, New York City and many counties had active property tax systems, though assessed values and service scale were smaller. Over time, suburban expansion, infrastructure, school funding, municipal services, and public demands increased, pushing property tax burdens upward. In many upstate counties, historical records show millage rates rising over time; assessing practices have evolved. The modern burden on homeowners is generally higher relative to a century ago, particularly in more developed counties.

North Carolina

Modern effective rate: ~0.62%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, many North Carolina counties were rural and lightly taxed. Over the 20th century, urban growth, expansion of municipal services, roads, schools, and local infrastructure raised the demands on local governments, increasing the tax burden on residences relative to the earlier era.

North Dakota

Modern effective rate: ~0.94%
Comparison to 100 years ago: North Dakota in the early 20th century comprised many rural agricultural counties with modest tax burdens on residential property. Over time, as towns grew and public service requirements expanded, property tax burdens on homes increased relative to those earlier decades.

Ohio

Modern effective rate: ~1.31%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Cities like Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus had property tax systems in earlier decades, but valuations were lower and municipal systems less complex. Over the 20th century, infrastructure, school systems, municipal services, and suburban growth pushed tax burdens upward for homeowners.

Oklahoma

Modern effective rate: ~0.77%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, Oklahoma was still developing economically (oil, agriculture), with many rural counties and limited municipal expectations. Over time, municipal expansion, infrastructure, schooling, and public services increased, driving higher property tax burdens on residential property relative to earlier times.

Oregon

Modern effective rate: ~0.78%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In early decades, Oregon’s towns and cities were smaller, property valuations lower, and municipal services simpler. As the state developed, infrastructure, urban growth, schools, and public service demands pushed property tax burdens upward compared to the early era.

Pennsylvania

Modern effective rate: ~1.19%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Pennsylvania, especially near Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and in older towns, has long relied on property tax for municipal funding. In the early 20th century, many municipalities had mill rates, though assessed values and municipal complexity were smaller. Over time, schooling, infrastructure, municipal services, roads, and demands on local government pushed property tax burdens upward relative to 100 years ago.

Rhode Island

Modern effective rate: ~1.05%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, Rhode Island was already densely developed and municipal strong, though property values and municipal service burdens were smaller. Over time, as municipal growth, service complexity, school funding, and infrastructure demands increased, property tax burdens on residential property rose relative to earlier decades.

South Carolina

Modern effective rate: ~0.47%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In earlier decades, much of South Carolina was rural or agricultural, with relatively light municipal service expectations and modest tax burdens. Over the 20th century, urbanization, public service demand, infrastructure, schools, and municipal responsibilities increased, pushing property tax burdens upward relative to a century ago.

South Dakota

Modern effective rate: ~0.99%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Many counties were sparsely populated and lightly taxed in the early 20th century, with minimal municipal services. Over time, as towns and cities developed, infrastructure and municipal demands grew, pushing property tax burdens higher relative to earlier decades.

Tennessee

Modern effective rate: ~0.49%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, many Tennessee counties were rural, and municipal demands were modest. As cities and towns expanded, infrastructure, schools, utilities, and municipal systems grew, increasing property tax demands on residential property. The modern burden is higher relative to historical norms, but other revenue sources (sales tax, etc.) have also played roles in moderating growth.

Texas

Modern effective rate: ~1.36%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the early 20th century, much of Texas was rural or frontier, with large landholdings and limited municipal expectations outside major towns. Over decades, urbanization, infrastructure, public services, school funding pressures, and population growth pushed property tax burdens on residences upward significantly. The modern tax burden on homeowners is far more substantial relative to the early period.

Utah

Modern effective rate: ~0.47%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, Utah’s population was more dispersed, municipal services were fewer, and property valuations lower. Over time, the growth of Salt Lake City, Provo, and other urban areas, as well as infrastructure and public service demand, raised property tax burdens on homeowners relative to earlier decades.

Vermont

Modern effective rate: ~1.42%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In early decades, Vermont’s small towns and rural communities had limited municipal budgets and modest service demands. Over time, public education, roads, utilities, municipal services, and infrastructure expansion pushed property tax burdens higher relative to earlier periods.

Virginia

Modern effective rate: ~0.77%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, many Virginia counties were rural with modest municipal functions. Over time, especially in Northern Virginia and growing suburban areas, demands for infrastructure, schools, roads, utilities, and municipal services increased, forcing property tax burdens higher on residential real estate relative to earlier decades.

Washington

Modern effective rate: ~0.75%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the early 20th century, Washington’s towns and cities were smaller; property values were lower, and municipal obligations fewer. Over time, urbanization (Seattle, Tacoma, etc.), demand for municipal services, infrastructure and schooling grew, pushing property tax burdens upward relative to earlier decades.

West Virginia

Modern effective rate: ~0.48%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the 1920s, many West Virginia counties were rural, with modest municipal service expectations and low valuations, so tax burdens on residential property were lower. Over time, some towns grew and municipal demands rose, increasing property tax burdens relative to those early decades.

Wisconsin

Modern effective rate: ~1.25%
Comparison to 100 years ago: In the early 20th century, towns and cities had property tax systems, but property valuations were smaller, and service expectations were less complex. Over time, infrastructure, school expansion, municipal growth, roads, utilities, and public services increased demands on property tax revenues, pushing burdens upward relative to earlier decades.

Wyoming

Modern effective rate: ~0.55%
Comparison to 100 years ago: Much of Wyoming in the early 20th century was sparsely populated or focused on resource land, ranching, mining, or open space, with low residential property valuations and minimal municipal service demands. Over time, as towns grew and infrastructure needs increased, property tax burdens on residential property rose in populated counties, although from a low base.

Patterns, Challenges, and Observations

From surveying state by state, a number of broader lessons and caveats emerge:

General Findings

Modern burdens are generally higher
In nearly every state, the effective property tax burden on residential property is higher today (in absolute and relative terms) than it was a century ago. That is unsurprising given the growth of public services, infrastructure, urban demand, and municipal complexity.
Reforms, exemptions, caps, and valuation lags moderate growth
Many states and municipalities introduced mechanisms such as homestead exemptions, rate caps, assessment limits, classification (residential vs commercial), freezes or “rollback” laws, and limits on reassessments. These tools moderate the speed at which tax burdens grow, especially for longtime owners, even as property values or public service demands rise.
Assessment practices distort direct comparisons
Two places with the same nominal mill rate might have very different effective burdens depending on how closely assessed value tracks market value, how often revaluations occur, and whether depreciation or adjustments are allowed in assessments. Over time, assessment practices may drift, making historical comparisons difficult.
Local variation is powerful
State averages mask enormous variation within each state. Some counties or municipalities have very high property tax burdens, others much lower. The trend within a given county or city may diverge from the state pattern.
Historical data limitations are severe
Because reliable, consistent, and comparable residential property tax data for full states in the 1920s are rare, many comparisons remain qualitative or based on archival case studies rather than uniform state figures.
Other revenue sources reduce the burden growth
As states developed income taxes, sales taxes, intergovernmental transfers, and federal aid over the 20th century, local governments had alternative revenue streams beyond property tax. That relieved some pressure for property tax growth, especially in states more reliant on other revenue sources.
Shifting responsibilities between state and local levels
Over time, state governments sometimes assumed greater roles in funding education, transportation, or other services. That can reduce the need for purely local property tax growth, in some cases pushing burden to other tax bases or revenue sources.
Inflation, real estate appreciation, and income growth complicate the picture
Even if a nominal effective rate doubled, if property values rose tenfold (or incomes rose significantly), the relative burden might increase less dramatically. Thus, looking only at nominal rates is misleading. The real burden (in relation to incomes, services, and value) is more meaningful — and that has often increased, though not uniformly across all areas.

Illustrative Example: California’s Reform (Prop 13)

California offers a vivid example of how tax reform can shape long-run burden trends. Prior to 1978, many localities increased assessments and property tax burdens as property values and public demands rose. In 1978, state voters approved a constitutional measure (commonly known as Prop 13) that capped general property tax rates to 1% of assessed value and limited annual assessment increases to 2% unless the property changed hands. That significantly constrained the growth trajectory of property tax burdens for residential owners, especially longtime owners. While the reform prevented runaway tax growth, the baseline burden is still markedly higher than what would have been typical in earlier decades. The reforms slowed growth but did not reverse the long-term upward trend.

Practical Implications for Homeowners and Policymakers

For homeowners, property taxes are often a “silent but sizable” cost of ownership; even a modest effective rate (e.g. 0.7%) on a valuable home amounts to a significant annual expense.
In high-growth areas, property assessments, local levies, and municipal bond obligations can push the burden higher, making tax planning and understanding local exemptions very important.
For policymakers, balancing revenue needs with affordability means choosing how much to rely on property taxes vs other sources (income, sales, state subsidies), and whether to deploy exemptions, caps, assessment controls, or progressive tax classification.
In evaluating historical comparisons, analysts need to adjust for inflation, income trends, assessment practices, and changes in service demands to meaningfully measure how the burden on homeowners has changed.

Summary & Final Thoughts

Modern effective residential property tax rates across the U.S. mostly fall between about 0.3% and 1.5%, with variation across states.
A century ago, property tax burdens (in nominal and real terms) were generally lower, especially outside urban centers, because public service demands, infrastructure, and municipal obligations were much lighter.
Over the 20th century, growth in roads, schools, utilities, municipal functions, and urban expansion increased the demands on local government revenue, pushing property tax burdens upward in many places.
That upward trajectory was moderated in many states by reforms: exemptions, rate caps, assessment limits, classification schemes, and reliance on alternative revenue sources.
Because of the difficulty in reliably measuring residential property tax burdens 100 years ago, most comparisons are qualitative or based on archival data rather than uniform statewide historical rates.
Nonetheless, the broader story is clear: homeownership today carries a far more layered and costly property tax burden than was common a century ago, especially in fast‑growing, infrastructure-intensive jurisdictions.